Incoming - tube strike

Headhuunter

nich wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

cjcp wrote:

I came in a bit later today, but the traffic was still at a standstill from PS to Embankment tube, and then through B'frairs Tunnel up to London Bridge.

What I don't understand is why people decide to drive in knowing they'll be stood in traffic for God knows how long :?: .

I'm mystified as well. Surely walking would be preferable and quicker.

I was thinking the same. I rode through Deptford to hit absolute gridlock all the way into Central London. I was thinking, if you can't somach cycling, why sit in traffic? It would be so much easier, quicker and more pleasant to walk along the Thames Path. It was a lovely morning and the Thames Path (south) is pleasant, wide and almost completely abandoned and has nice views across the river. Those people sat in traffic at Deptford probably didn't make it to the office til 2 hours or so after I buzzed past them...

I think there's a lot of people in this city that are lazy, unfit, or just don't know their own abilities.

Talking to a friend the other day, he wouldnt' even consider walking from London Bridge to Moorgate. It's like 25 mins!!

I quite happily walk from Moorgate to Victoria which is about 40 mins, and that's when the tubes are happily working

I know, a guy from work went on a 30 mile ride the other day. he was serously concerned that he was going to die on the way or something covering such a mammoth distance. He has a new, Ribble road bike (as recommended by me!) so that's not a problem. In the end he did and was in work the next day very surprised at how easy it had been.

Last summer I walked from Brockley, SE4 to St Pancras, along the Thames Path, crossing the river at the wobbly bridge and up going across to Covent Gdn at 1 point. It's not as hard as you think!

amnezia

IMHO

Shit happens. We are still recovering from a recession. Most private sector companies have had to make redundancies in the name of efficiency, i don't see why public sector employees should get a free pass.

As technology improves certain jobs become redundant. We shouldn't be protecting them for the sake of it.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

No. I'm saying that if "a" worker doesn't like the pay or conditions then they should leave. If no-one takes that job then pay/conditions need to be improved in order to fill that role. If however that role can be filled for less pay/worse conditions then so be it. Market forces come into play. Do you think that no-one would work on the tubes if TfL sacked all the striking workers?

I'm not suggesting "piddling" wages are to be paid - but if the pay isn't good enough then workers are free to leave, and if there are suitable replacements happy to work for less then great.

The army and the police aren't allowed to strike (by law) - as far as I'm aware they aren't wholly populated by ex-cons and school leavers on piddling wages.

I think the 'like-it or lump-it' approach to worker's rights is exactly why we have trade unions today. It leads to exploitation of unskilled jobs.

I agree that trade unions did have their place - but that role is largely redundant now. There are significant protections for employees that simply didn't exist even twenty years ago.

The problem is that the unions are a complete joke - hypocritical, illogical, totally lacking in any empathy apart from for their own benefit, to the dis-service of the rest of the public. It is completely ludicrous to demand (with threats) that jobs that have been made redundant should be kept. That's just part of business/life. The private sector have understood this - why should the public sector be any different?

shm_uk

Que?

There's a Tube strike?


I hadn't really noticed anything untoward, other than the slightly-louder-than-normal grumbling and complaining emanating from that london... although I am one of the more fortunate residents of the UK, who doesn't live or work in london village...

MonkeyMonster

I have no faith in the crow's union when those two cases (last year?) just fizzled out. One where the non-able to work person due to injuries was caught playing squash and the sober at work with all the empty tinnies in the bin. It was such clear cut and dried case yet "The union" managed to wangle both on technicalities and a pseudo strike (if memory serves).

Of course I could be wrong and he really really want's whats best for his staff and all users of the london underground.

Or he might be a cock

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

"Doing better out of something" by blackmailing London on highly dubious grounds is not to be championed.

It really is very simple. If you don't like your pay or conditions, then leave. There are other jobs. If no-one fills the roles, then the pay or conditions must be improved until they do.

It *is* very simple, but its not very good is it? I mean, its fine for educated workers who do have more mobility in the job market. You'll find that conditions and worker rights are way better in organisations whose employees are generally well qualified. Because they have a choice... Companies have to look after them or they'll just leave. But for more blue collar roles, the employers have staff over a barrel and can tell them to put up with whatever they deem acceptable for them or leave. Going on strike or organised union action is the only power that workers like this have. Not having the right to unionise or strike will result in a disenfranchised, poorly paid workforce feeling trapped terrible conditions. This disproportionately affects the working class, and is a major driver of inequality in society.

If you're cool with all that, and just care about getting to work on time, then thats fine. But don't kid yourself that all this hassle is just because Bob Crow wants a new Bentley. Because thats just a ridiculous position. You can argue all you want about the reasons for them going on strike, but its important for workers to still have that option. And "Because the rest of us have f@ck all rights" isn't a good enough reason to oppose it imo.

You may be better placed than me to comment - but logically that doesn't make any sense. Why can a blue collar worker not find another job? In fact, if they do unskilled work, it might be easier to find another job than a narrow, skilled, specialist field of work?

And surely workers rights are workers rights - the difference is, what can be done to enforce them?

This tube strike hasn't affected me at all by the way - so I don't consider it a balance of workers rights against getting to work on time. It's whether what is being demanded (and how) is legitimate. I don't think it is, and the only way that the RMT will win this dispute is that put simply what choice do TFL have? There can't be constant tube strikes, they can't sack all of the strikers. So the RMT get whatever they demand, and if they don't, they hold the captial to ransom.

I'm not suggesting that there should be no right to strike. But where there is a potentially devasting effect of a strike on a primary service, this puts the balance of bargaining too far in favour of the strikers. There are good reasons why the army and the police can't strike - I think there are equally good reasons for the tube to be on the same basis. The RMT union use their position to abuse the right to strike - and if you abuse a right it should be removed.

W1

biondino wrote:

W1 wrote:

No. I'm saying that if "a" worker doesn't like the pay or conditions then they should leave. If no-one takes that job then pay/conditions need to be improved in order to fill that role. If however that role can be filled for less pay/worse conditions then so be it. Market forces come into play. Do you think that no-one would work on the tubes if TfL sacked all the striking workers?

I'm not suggesting "piddling" wages are to be paid - but if the pay isn't good enough then workers are free to leave, and if there are suitable replacements happy to work for less then great.

The army and the police aren't allowed to strike (by law) - as far as I'm aware they aren't wholly populated by ex-cons and school leavers on piddling wages.

I wouldn't work on the tube if TFL starting illegally sacking people who asked for better conditions, no! You do understand it works the other way round, too, don't you? That employers in critical jobs like the underground are able to push harder and harder against their employees because unless they go for strike action, there's very little they can do? It's a game of brinksmanship, played knowingly by both sides, and the current move is the unions have called TFL's bluff. At some point it'll be sorted out, and a new "fair" wage/conditions situation will be established. That's the free market for you.

What? How is the employer empowered? They can still leave their jobs - there's nothing to stop them. There isn't a need to strike if an employee feels abused by their employer.

It's hardly the free market when one side can effectively hold the other to ransom, is it?

jonginge

England are playing football tonight.

I think I wrote that sentence during the last set of strikes. And the set before that.... (I'm not joking)

Headhuunter

amnezia wrote:

IMHO

Shit happens. We are still recovering from a recession. Most private sector companies have had to make redundancies in the name of efficiency, i don't see why public sector employees should get a free pass.

As technology improves certain jobs become redundant. We shouldn't be protecting them for the sake of it.

Exactly, I barely missed out on redundancy in 2009 and ended up on third of my previous year's salary just to stay in a job, yet Tube workers are comlplaining that they didn't inflation rate pay RISES!

MonkeyMonster

JonGinge wrote:

England are playing football tonight.

I think I wrote that sentence during the last set of strikes. And the set before that.... (I'm not joking)

It's a consipracy I tells ya!

_Brun_

But England are playing in Switzerland, and I'll bet their public transport system will be running like clockwork.

biondino

Headhuunter wrote:

amnezia wrote:

IMHO

Shit happens. We are still recovering from a recession. Most private sector companies have had to make redundancies in the name of efficiency, i don't see why public sector employees should get a free pass.

As technology improves certain jobs become redundant. We shouldn't be protecting them for the sake of it.

Exactly, I barely missed out on redundancy in 2009 and ended up on third of my previous year's salary just to stay in a job, yet Tube workers are comlplaining that they didn't inflation rate pay RISES!

Oh, you're bitter and resentful at someone else being able to look after themselves better than you could. Did you think of joining a union? Anyway, that explains a lot.

biondino

Also, don't forget that your buddies have established that if you don't like the pay and conditions you can always go get another job.

W1

biondino wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

amnezia wrote:

IMHO

Shit happens. We are still recovering from a recession. Most private sector companies have had to make redundancies in the name of efficiency, i don't see why public sector employees should get a free pass.

As technology improves certain jobs become redundant. We shouldn't be protecting them for the sake of it.

Exactly, I barely missed out on redundancy in 2009 and ended up on third of my previous year's salary just to stay in a job, yet Tube workers are comlplaining that they didn't inflation rate pay RISES!

Oh, you're bitter and resentful at someone else being able to look after themselves better than you could. Did you think of joining a union? Anyway, that explains a lot.

"Someone else being able to look after themselves better" - do you really think that legitimises industrial action? They are trying to extort ludicrous demands through attempting to bring the capital to it's knees. That's no more "looking after themselves" than robbing someone.

We're in a recession FFS. I can't wait for these goverment cuts to give the public sector a dose of reality.

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

amnezia wrote:

IMHO

Shit happens. We are still recovering from a recession. Most private sector companies have had to make redundancies in the name of efficiency, i don't see why public sector employees should get a free pass.

As technology improves certain jobs become redundant. We shouldn't be protecting them for the sake of it.

Exactly, I barely missed out on redundancy in 2009 and ended up on third of my previous year's salary just to stay in a job, yet Tube workers are comlplaining that they didn't inflation rate pay RISES!

Oh, you're bitter and resentful at someone else being able to look after themselves better than you could. Did you think of joining a union? Anyway, that explains a lot.

I have no problem with workers standing up for themselves but I find it a bit gaulling when said workers are funded by the taxpayer and hugely overpriced fares. Unfortunately public sector workers are less open to the winds of capitalism and if their unions are too strong they can hold taxpayers to ransom.

biondino

Headhuunter wrote:

I have no problem with workers standing up for themselves but I find it a bit gaulling when said workers are funded by the taxpayer and hugely overpriced fares. Unfortunately public sector workers are less open to the winds of capitalism and if their unions are too strong they can hold taxpayers to ransom.

But a second ago you were moaning about the winds of capitalism costing you 2/3 your salary!

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I have no problem with workers standing up for themselves but I find it a bit gaulling when said workers are funded by the taxpayer and hugely overpriced fares. Unfortunately public sector workers are less open to the winds of capitalism and if their unions are too strong they can hold taxpayers to ransom.

But a second ago you were moaning about the winds of capitalism costing you 2/3 your salary!

I wasn't moaning about it I was simply using it as an illustration of reality in the capitalist world in the grip of recession. I'm not saying I was happy to have my salary cut but I was happy to be able to keep hold of my job yet at the same time Tube workers were bemoaning the fact that they hadn't had a decent salary hike!!

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

You may be better placed than me to comment - but logically that doesn't make any sense. Why can a blue collar worker not find another job? In fact, if they do unskilled work, it might be easier to find another job than a narrow, skilled, specialist field of work?

Sure, they can find another job, but if their old employer can drive staff out by using market conditions to justify making working conditions/remuneration unacceptable, then what is their to stop any new prospective employers from doing the same?

My point is that the better educated (this is clumsy shorthand for defining class, sorry) you are, the better the conditions you expect at your workplace. If Accenture was based in a series of portacabins on an estate somewhere in Slough, I doubt they would attract the same staff they do now. A market driven approach only favours the higher end of the market. IT Consultants, accountants etc... don't need unions. They can represent themselves. Blue collar workers generally can't/won't for fear of being told to like it or lump it.

W1 wrote:

And surely workers rights are workers rights - the difference is, what can be done to enforce them?

This tube strike hasn't affected me at all by the way - so I don't consider it a balance of workers rights against getting to work on time. It's whether what is being demanded (and how) is legitimate. I don't think it is, and the only way that the RMT will win this dispute is that put simply what choice do TFL have? There can't be constant tube strikes, they can't sack all of the strikers. So the RMT get whatever they demand, and if they don't, they hold the captial to ransom.

I'm not suggesting that there should be no right to strike. But where there is a potentially devasting effect of a strike on a primary service, this puts the balance of bargaining too far in favour of the strikers. There are good reasons why the army and the police can't strike - I think there are equally good reasons for the tube to be on the same basis. The RMT union use their position to abuse the right to strike - and if you abuse a right it should be removed.

Just think of the consequences of removing that right... I agree with you that the reasons for striking are debatable. But there is brinkmanship on both sides because generally, in this country, public opinion appears to be against the unions. Its better to improve the way things work rather than deconstruct it in this case, imo.

kurako

Just for a bit of balance Ian Coucher (the outgoing head of Network Rail) has been in the news too. His (publicly funded) pay and perks of £1m+ are under review due to a series of allegations in Private Eye.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... utive.html

snooks

DonDaddyD wrote:

Aren't you a bit posh for the East End?

Still in South Wimbledon though I commute to Goodmayes. From Stratford I take Romford Road and follow the train route past Seven Sisters, Ilford to Goodmayes.

Dunno whether that was a compliment or not :?

I moved out east around 18 months ago to live with my then girlfriend, now fiancee, and cycle in from the east end. Nothing like the fun of the embankment or the scenery of Richmond, and it's only 7 miles in.

You must be cranking up the miles, and must be a mere shadow of your former self doing that daily...Chapeau sir

We must find an east version of the Morpeth

At least the roads on your way out would have been clear, except around the Stratford one way.

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

amnezia wrote:

IMHO

Shit happens. We are still recovering from a recession. Most private sector companies have had to make redundancies in the name of efficiency, i don't see why public sector employees should get a free pass.

As technology improves certain jobs become redundant. We shouldn't be protecting them for the sake of it.

Exactly, I barely missed out on redundancy in 2009 and ended up on third of my previous year's salary just to stay in a job, yet Tube workers are comlplaining that they didn't inflation rate pay RISES!

I have to bite now....

You cannot compare the way public sector workers and private sector workers are paid, how they are paid and why they are paid to do what they do.

I would say that a Tube workers job is more crucial in keeping the City functioning than yours or my own. In terms of level of importance, working in an environment of diminishing quality (it is) and meeting the demands of an ever increasing population they should get paid more. As for pay rises, if it is anything like the NHS then its about a 2% pay rise each year (which has been frozen) or an increase on the increment of the band.

In the public sector there is no negotiating your salary, there is no Christmas bonus (barring the now frozen 2% increase, which is lower than the rate of inflation) if your targets are met.

You on the other hand benefit from the freedom to negotiate your salary, you have a target driven job are likely to have a Christmas bonus and I believe have made 6figures out of it once before. I really don't see how you are in a position to complain about tube workers.

DonDaddyD

snooks wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Aren't you a bit posh for the East End?

Still in South Wimbledon though I commute to Goodmayes. From Stratford I take Romford Road and follow the train route past Seven Sisters, Ilford to Goodmayes.

Dunno whether that was a compliment or not :?

I moved out east around 18 months ago to live with my then girlfriend, now fiancee, and cycle in from the east end. Nothing like the fun of the embankment or the scenery of Richmond, and it's only 7 miles in.

You must be cranking up the miles, and must be a mere shadow of your former self doing that daily...Chapeau sir

We must find an east version of the Morpeth

At least the roads on your way out would have been clear, except around the Stratford one way.

Nowt wrong with East/North East London.

Finding an Eastern Morpeth would be nice, and I'm due a visit to the 'Peth proper if you're around.

I'm certainly healthier I'm not sure that I'm slimmer though. The ride from Aldgate is nice as its going against traffic, thus traffic free.

Congrats on the Engagement!

I'm certainly healthier

ketsbaia

Are we officially in a recession? I thought there was growth recorded in the last two sets of figures. Ergo no recession.

As someone has already said, this strike is the only thing the tube workers can do to force LUL back to the table to think about the staffing levels. They aren't complaining about the job losses through natural wastage per se, they're drawing attention to the potentially unsafe levels of staffing at stations as a result of said natural wastage. In the only way they can. I don't see them 'holding anyone to ransom' - people have been perfectly capable of getting to work/working from home/using it as an excuse to get in late/delete as applicable.

LUL's problem is that it's been told by the government that cuts are coming, but not how much and when, so it's frantically trying to slash spending in any way it can. The reorganisation is one of the ways it is doing this. RMT thinks it's going too far too quickly (here's essentially what is debatable) and hasn't received satisfactory reassurances from the management over the safety of both the public and its membership as a result of the cutbacks. It's pursuing the only option left to force LUL back to the table, which is kind of what LUL was expecting anyway. Doubtless a settlement will be reached.

If I were a member of the union, I'd be delighted it was standing up for my safety and that of the general public. Despite what people are bleating, this isn't about pay and terms. If I relied on the tube to get to work, I'd be a bit cheesed off for a day or two that my travel plans had been disrupted (but would doubtless have just stayed at home). As it is, I cycle in, so apart from encountering a slightly larger numpty quotient on the road, it hasn't affected me one iota.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

amnezia wrote:

IMHO

Shit happens. We are still recovering from a recession. Most private sector companies have had to make redundancies in the name of efficiency, i don't see why public sector employees should get a free pass.

As technology improves certain jobs become redundant. We shouldn't be protecting them for the sake of it.

Exactly, I barely missed out on redundancy in 2009 and ended up on third of my previous year's salary just to stay in a job, yet Tube workers are comlplaining that they didn't inflation rate pay RISES!

I have to bite now....

You cannot compare the way public sector workers and private sector workers are paid, how they are paid and why they are paid to do what they do.

I would say that a Tube workers job is more crucial in keeping the City functioning than yours or my own. In terms of level of importance, working in an environment of diminishing quality (it is) and meeting the demands of an ever increasing population they should get paid more. As for pay rises, if it is anything like the NHS then its about a 2% pay rise each year (which has been frozen) or an increase on the increment of the band.

In the public sector there is no negotiating your salary, there is no Christmas bonus (barring the now frozen 2% increase, which is lower than the rate of inflation) if your targets are met.

You on the other hand benefit from the freedom to negotiate your salary, you have a target driven job are likely to have a Christmas bonus and I believe have made 6figures out of it once before. I really don't see how you are in a position to complain about tube workers.

Just because I have in the past earned 6 figure salaries doesn't mean I don't have a sense of value for my tax! Yes, I have the ability to negotiate my salary and if my demands are not met, I go somewhere else. Equally when the sh*t hit the fan my employer was free to slash my salary by 60%. Tube management doesn't appear to be able to do this or they end up with a strike on their hands. I have to add that I work 50-60 hour weeks for my pay when things get busy and I don't get overtime.

I realise that this strike is not about pay but it appears that unions wish to keep unnecessary levels of staffing in stations for no other reason than to keep their members on the gravy train.

I don't use the Tube, well perhaps once a month, but it rankles that part of the enormous levels of tax I pay go on the Tube and fares are some of the highest in the world.

ketsbaia

Headhuunter wrote:

I realise that this strike is not about pay but it appears that unions wish to keep unnecessary levels of staffing in stations for no other reason than to keep their members on the gravy train.

Well it might appear that way, but that does all depend entirely on your perspective, dunnit?

There are safety and security implications as a result of decreased staffing levels at stations for both employees and passengers. And, tbh, there are a hell of a lot of customer complaints are about not being able to find staff at stations, especially late at night. It'd be ironic if they're they same kind of people objecting to this strike.

MonkeyMonster

ketsbaia wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I realise that this strike is not about pay but it appears that unions wish to keep unnecessary levels of staffing in stations for no other reason than to keep their members on the gravy train.

Well it might appear that way, but that does all depend entirely on your perspective, dunnit?

There are safety and security implications as a result of decreased staffing levels at stations for both employees and passengers. And, tbh, there are a hell of a lot of customer complaints are about not being able to find staff at stations, especially late at night. It'd be ironic if they're they same kind of people objecting to this strike.

Well excuse me if I can't have my cake AND eat it...

W1

ketsbaia wrote:

Are we officially in a recession? I thought there was growth recorded in the last two sets of figures. Ergo no recession.

As someone has already said, this strike is the only thing the tube workers can do to force LUL back to the table to think about the staffing levels. They aren't complaining about the job losses through natural wastage per se, they're drawing attention to the potentially unsafe levels of staffing at stations as a result of said natural wastage. In the only way they can. I don't see them 'holding anyone to ransom' - people have been perfectly capable of getting to work/working from home/using it as an excuse to get in late/delete as applicable.

LUL's problem is that it's been told by the government that cuts are coming, but not how much and when, so it's frantically trying to slash spending in any way it can. The reorganisation is one of the ways it is doing this. RMT thinks it's going too far too quickly (here's essentially what is debatable) and hasn't received satisfactory reassurances from the management over the safety of both the public and its membership as a result of the cutbacks. It's pursuing the only option left to force LUL back to the table, which is kind of what LUL was expecting anyway. Doubtless a settlement will be reached.

If I were a member of the union, I'd be delighted it was standing up for my safety and that of the general public. Despite what people are bleating, this isn't about pay and terms. If I relied on the tube to get to work, I'd be a bit cheesed off for a day or two that my travel plans had been disrupted (but would doubtless have just stayed at home). As it is, I cycle in, so apart from encountering a slightly larger numpty quotient on the road, it hasn't affected me one iota.

It's not about safety, it's about job losses. The safety element is just a smokescreen to try and justify their actions. The fact of the matter remains that there is no need for ticket office staff at every station all the time - RMT don't like this so they go on strike.

ketsbaia

W1 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

Are we officially in a recession? I thought there was growth recorded in the last two sets of figures. Ergo no recession.

As someone has already said, this strike is the only thing the tube workers can do to force LUL back to the table to think about the staffing levels. They aren't complaining about the job losses through natural wastage per se, they're drawing attention to the potentially unsafe levels of staffing at stations as a result of said natural wastage. In the only way they can. I don't see them 'holding anyone to ransom' - people have been perfectly capable of getting to work/working from home/using it as an excuse to get in late/delete as applicable.

LUL's problem is that it's been told by the government that cuts are coming, but not how much and when, so it's frantically trying to slash spending in any way it can. The reorganisation is one of the ways it is doing this. RMT thinks it's going too far too quickly (here's essentially what is debatable) and hasn't received satisfactory reassurances from the management over the safety of both the public and its membership as a result of the cutbacks. It's pursuing the only option left to force LUL back to the table, which is kind of what LUL was expecting anyway. Doubtless a settlement will be reached.

If I were a member of the union, I'd be delighted it was standing up for my safety and that of the general public. Despite what people are bleating, this isn't about pay and terms. If I relied on the tube to get to work, I'd be a bit cheesed off for a day or two that my travel plans had been disrupted (but would doubtless have just stayed at home). As it is, I cycle in, so apart from encountering a slightly larger numpty quotient on the road, it hasn't affected me one iota.

It's not about safety, it's about job losses. The safety element is just a smokescreen to try and justify their actions. The fact of the matter remains that there is no need for ticket office staff at every station all the time - RMT don't like this so they go on strike.

Oh, sorry. I'm not entering into a purely subjective debate. You can think that if it makes you feel more indignant - I can't stop you. But there are safety and security implications of fewer staff at stations.

No one is arguing for 24-hour staffing of all stations.

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

Just because I have in the past earned 6 figure salaries doesn't mean I don't have a sense of value for my tax! Yes, I have the ability to negotiate my salary and if my demands are not met, I go somewhere else. Equally when the sh*t hit the fan my employer was free to slash my salary by 60%. Tube management doesn't appear to be able to do this or they end up with a strike on their hands. I have to add that I work 50-60 hour weeks for my pay when things get busy and I don't get overtime.

I realise that this strike is not about pay but it appears that unions wish to keep unnecessary levels of staffing in stations for no other reason than to keep their members on the gravy train.

I don't use the Tube, well perhaps once a month, but it rankles that part of the enormous levels of tax I pay go on the Tube and fares are some of the highest in the world.

I grow tired of people somewhat thinking that all public sector workers should be eternally thankful to tax payers as though we are somewhat tax exempt. We all pay tax even public sector workers so you're not exactly being hard done by.

You missed the point.

I actually begun my post by stating you cannot compare the way, why and how a public sector working is paid compared to someone in the private sector. In the same way you cannot compare how and why you are paid compared to a sole trader.

You get a huge bonus, they don't. They get to strike, you can't. It's swings and roundabouts. There are positives and negatives to each sector.

The Unions want to keep staffing levels at present numbers because they feel it will help ensure worker/customer safety. With a smaller work force more work and responsiblity has to be given to the remaing workers. Some may have to do the work of two jobs for the same pay, which no one can argue is generally welecomed. But most importantly increasing a persons workload without full consideration of their capacity could endanger lives.

Example: If the Operator suddenly has to do an additional role then he is more likely to have his attention diverted from ensuring no collisions.

rjsterry

Indeed. Not on the tube, but at my local station, the barriers are frequently left open at various times of the day, as they cannot be left shut with no staff (just occasionally Oystercards don't work properly). Equally, if a tube station needs to be evacuated, it's going to take more than a couple of staff to do it properly. Similarly, dealing with drunk and/or violent passengers late at night needs proper staffing levels.